Sludge does it again....

[peachgirl]

I've gotten into several discussions over the "quality" of the reporting on the Matt Drudge website.

So, I'm wondering, is there anyone who thinks it's a good thing for him to publish the horrid pictures of Paul Johnson's beheading?
Sorry for not posting the link, but for those who want to look, you'll have to type it in for yourself.

Yes, he warns that the pics are graphic, but my argument is that it's wrong to publish them whether anyone chooses to look or not. I say that it only proves that the site is nothing more than pure, unadulterated trash.

For those that think it's ok, would you say the same thing if CBS, ABC or NBC chose to publish the photos?

 

[bsnyder]

Did you have a problem with all the internet sites and network TV coverage that showed the prison abuse pictures?

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Did you have a problem with all the internet sites and network TV coverage that showed the prison abuse pictures?

Well, since you didn't answer my question, I guess I won't answer yours.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Did you have a problem with all the internet sites and network TV coverage that showed the prison abuse pictures?

I would think there is a difference between pictures showing "humilation" and the posting the pictures of "mutilation".

We are supposed to be above them aren't we? Or is it time to come down to their level?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I've gotten into several discussions over the "quality" of the reporting on the Matt Drudge website.

So, I'm wondering, is there anyone who thinks it's a good thing for him to publish the horrid pictures of Paul Johnson's beheading?
Sorry for not posting the link, but for those who want to look, you'll have to type it in for yourself.

Yes, he warns that the pics are graphic, but my argument is that it's wrong to publish them whether anyone chooses to look or not. I say that it only proves that the site is nothing more than pure, unadulterated trash.

For those that think it's ok, would you say the same thing if CBS, ABC or NBC chose to publish the photos?

There are horrid pictures. They infuriated me. There is a warning that they are very graphic, but do consider; Nick Berg's pictures shouldn't be shown, Paul Johnson's picture shouldn't be shown, pictures of the world trade center are now limited to a very santitized version but we can see picture after picture of Iraqi prisoners. Perhaps we need to be reminded of just how evil and degenerate the enemy is and how they will murder the innocent because the "can". So no, I don't have a problem with the pictures being posted. They serve the purpose to remind us what animals we are up against. Yes, I would have a problem with the broadcast or television networks airing them. I can put a parental control on the web.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I've gotten into several discussions over the "quality" of the reporting on the Matt Drudge website.

So, I'm wondering, is there anyone who thinks it's a good thing for him to publish the horrid pictures of Paul Johnson's beheading?
Sorry for not posting the link, but for those who want to look, you'll have to type it in for yourself.

Yes, he warns that the pics are graphic, but my argument is that it's wrong to publish them whether anyone chooses to look or not. I say that it only proves that the site is nothing more than pure, unadulterated trash.

For those that think it's ok, would you say the same thing if CBS, ABC or NBC chose to publish the photos?

There are horrid pictures. They infuriated me. There is a warning that they are very graphic, but do consider; Nick Berg's pictures shouldn't be shown, Paul Johnson's picture shouldn't be shown, pictures of the world trade center are now limited to a very santitized version but we can see picture after picture of Iraqi prisoners. Perhaps we need to be reminded of just how evil and degenerate the enemy is and how they will murder the innocent because the "can". So no, I don't have a problem with the pictures being posted. They serve the purpose to remind us what animals we are up against. Yes, I would have a problem with the broadcast or television networks airing them. I can put a parental control on the web.

 

[EltonJohn]

I support the free press, it is not wrong to publish newsworthy events. This is newsworthy, and Americans need to know the type of people that we are fighting.

No I would not mind if the TV networks braodcast the pictures either. As I said, Americans need to know what we are up against, and we need to get fired up about this. They are poking and prodding a sleeping giant, and the sooner we wake up the better.


Flame away!

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by EltonJohn
I support the free press, it is not wrong to publish newsworthy events. This is newsworthy, and Americans need to know the type of people that we are fighting.

No I would not mind if the TV networks braodcast the pictures either. As I said, Americans need to know what we are up against, and we need to get fired up about this. They are poking and prodding a sleeping giant, and the sooner we wake up the better.


Flame away!

Well thanks! Don't mind if I do!

This just doesn't seem to be a good place to post that link.
Would the Billy Graham Evangelistic Associationapprove of this rather silly insensitive post?
I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't just flame you but nukes you for that bit of "silliness". (Actually more nasty words than "silliness" come to mind.)

 

[peachgirl]

I support the free press, it is not wrong to publish newsworthy events.

So pictures of our dead soldiers being drug through the streets and mutilated is ok too?

Would it be ok to show pictures of American soldiers being tortured?


It would be, after all, newsworthy.

 

[bumcat]

This is NOT the place to post that. Lots of things are newsworthy but some seem to have lost their common sense.
You know we get it by just hearing this poor guy was tortured and beheaded. You can't see God but you get that right?
You don't have to physically see him to believe right? well same here.
Elton you need to take that site off ASAP!

 

[peachgirl]

Elton you need to take that site off ASAP!

I agree, we went through this same thing when this happened before. Someone posted a link to those photos as well and eventually it was removed.

I intentionally did not post the site as I thought it was highly inappropriate.

 

[bumcat]

Thank you for removing that. So disrespectful to the family for that to be posted anywhere!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Peachgirl -- ITA with you. (Again, hope you are still seated! ) I don't care what warnings you add, this is completely uncalled for. Drudge is simply about sensationalism, but this time he's crossed way, way over the line.

 

[debster812]

Originally posted by EltonJohn
I support the free press, it is not wrong to publish newsworthy events. This is newsworthy, and Americans need to know the type of people that we are fighting.

No I would not mind if the TV networks braodcast the pictures either. As I said, Americans need to know what we are up against, and we need to get fired up about this. They are poking and prodding a sleeping giant, and the sooner we wake up the better.


Flame away!

TV Networks?????? After what time? I sure as heck do not want my 7 year old subjected to any pictures that have anything to do with this capture, torture and subsequent execution. What, are you thinking on the 6pm local news? Please.

I am guessing you posted the link, and it has already been removed (by you or the admins of this site) and for that, I am thankful.

edited to add: I completely agree with the OP that Drudge has gone too far publishing these pics. We all know what happened, I don't think there is ANY need whatsoever to sensationalize this death. Can you even imagine the pain his family is going through right now?

 

[Jasminesmommy]

I think it has been removed could not find it.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Well, since you didn't answer my question, I guess I won't answer yours.

I'll let this column speak for me. She says it far better than I could:

REPORTING FOR THE ENEMY

By DEBORAH ORIN

June 16, 2004 -- THE video only lasts four minutes or so — grue some scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.
Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade — all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

No surprise, since no newscast would air the videos of Nick Berg and Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl getting decapitated, or of U.S. contractors in Fallujah getting torn limb from limb by al Qaeda operatives.

But every TV network has endlessly shown photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib. Why?

"Because most [journalists] want Bush to lose," says AEI scholar Michael Ledeen, who helped host the screening of the Saddam video.

It's not just journalists. The Pentagon has lots of Saddam atrocity footage — but is loathe to release it, possibly for fear it would be taken as a crude attempt to blunt criticism of Abu Ghraib.

So the world sees photos of U.S. interrogators using dogs to scare prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But not the footage of Saddam's prisoners getting fed — alive — to Doberman pinschers on Saddam's watch. (That video's been described by former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.)

Former Pentagon official Richard Perle raps "faint hearts in the administration," saying they've bought into the idea that it's "politically incorrect" to show the horrors of Saddam's regime.

But he also faults the media — after all, AEI's briefings on Iraq have been standing-room-only, but the room was half empty for the screening of the Saddam torture video.

But part of the issue is simply that Saddam's tortures, like al Qaedas tactics, are so awful that they're unbearable to watch.

If I couldn't watch them myself, I'm hardly arguing that others should have to. Yet it raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling.

In this era, a photo is everything. We highlight U.S. prisoner abuse because the photos aren't too offensive to show. We downplay Saddam's abuse precisely because it's far worse — so we can't use the photos. And that sets the stage for remarks like Sen. Ted Kennedy's claim that Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under "U.S. management."

Terrorism is sometimes called asymmetric warfare — America had to adjust to new tactics to deal with small bands of terrorists who were able to turn our airplanes into weapons against us. Now it turns out that we also face asymmetric propaganda — where the terrorists gain a p.r. advantage precisely because what they do is so horrific that our media aren't able to deal with it.

The U.S. military hasn't figured out a strategic way to deal with this problem.

But neither has the press.

Media analysts like Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler admit it sounds "sanctimonious" to justify publishing prison abuse photos — but not al Qaeda beheading videos — in the name of showing "the reality of war." But that is just what he did.

AEI spokeswoman Veronique Rodman, puzzled by the minimal interest in the Saddam torture video, is sure that if it was a video of equally horrific torture committed by U.S. troops, the press would find ways to show or report it.

Reporters have to face up to the fact that right now, if we highlight the wrongs that Americans commit but not — out of squeamishness — the far worse horrors committed by others, we become propaganda tools for the other side.

This isn't to argue in any way against reporting the Abu Ghraib scandal. But reporters have to face up to the problems — and find ways to achieve a more balanced account.

Saddam's torture videos may be too awful to show, but it's hard to explain the low media interest in the story of seven Iraqi men who had their right hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs — and then got new prosthetic arms and new hope in America.

They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures — and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib — with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men.

Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington Bureau Chief